Heute haben fast alle Leute, die Internet benutzen, Internet-Link direkt oder indirekt erheben. Die Frage ist, dass man sich durch Internet-Link ab und zu unrecht webseite, z.B. Angriff auf Urheberrecht, Porno etc. nährt. Dann kommt es zuerst in Betracht, ob man, wer einen Link auf diese Webseite erstellt, die Beihilfe betrifft. Zweites ist die Frage, ob Internetdienstanbieter, wer einen Internetraum anbietet, auch die Beihilfe von Beihilfe(Kettenbeihilfe) betrifft. Aber es ist nicht einfach, dass Internetdienstanbieter den Vorsatz bei Beihilfe hat, weil es ist –nach in dubio pro reo- auch schwer, dass er Unrecht von einem bestimmten Website erkennt.

There are futures, options as derivatives in our capital-market including KOSPI200 futures and options. Unfortunately linked-manipulations between stock tradings and derivatives tradings happen too often. It is able to distinguish linked-manipulations from faked-normal stock tradings using some criterias ; real purposes of tradings, rationals manners or not, the scales of profits. These acts of unfair trades are increasing in our capital market and especially the occurrences of new type of unfair trades cast attentions on same fields for example manipulations disguising hedge in option trades etc. Crimes in manipulations fields are developing without halts. In order to cope with its revolutions, we should make clear standards to distinguish linked-manipulations from faked-normal stock-tradings by searching same case studies.

In der koreanischen Lehre behandelt man den Erlaubnistatbestandsirrtum als Vorsatzproblem, indem man ihn als Tatbestansirrtum oder als Verbotsirrtum sieht. All diesbezügliche deutschen Ansichten sind in Korea fast gleich eingeführt. Die koreanische überwiegende Meinung folgt der rechtsfolgenverweisenden Schuldtheorie wie in Deutschland. Zur Zeit steigt sich die strege Schuldtheorie. Die koreanische Rechtsprechung geht anderen Weg, auf dem sie zur Rechtfertigung führt, wenn der Erlaubnistatbestandsirrtum gerechte Gründe hat. Diese Position wird von der Lehre heftig kritisiert, es gebe überhaupt keinen Irrtum, der irgenwie zur Rechtfertigung führt. Der Grund ist bis jetzt nicht angegeben. Die Notwehrlage ist ex-post beurtelt. In korea ist diese ex-post Betrachtung allgemein anerkannt. Dagegen beruht die koreanische Rechtsprechung auf der ex-ante Beurteilung objektiv nach der allgemeinen Personen an Stelle des Täters. Die Notwehrlage verankert sich dadurch als normative Voraussetzung in Anbetracht aller Umstände. Wenn die Notwehrlage in diesem Sinne ist verneint, kommt die Putativnotwehr mit gerechtem Grund in Betracht, was den Täter auch zur Rechtfertigung führt. Die Unterscheidung zwischen Notwehr und Putativnotwehr erfolgt mit dem Urteil der gerechten Gründe zugleich. Die Notwehrlage ist also normative Gefahrenbewertung über die Situation, in welcher sich der Täter befindet. Die Putativnotwehr ist in Korea zweierlei behandeln. Die Irrtumslehre betont die Abweichung vom Objektem und Subjektem. Aber die koreanische Rechtsprechung versucht auf der Rechtswidrigkeitsebene beides normativ zu harmonisieren. Die Notwehrlage ist in diesem Sinne ex-ante normative Voraussetzung, in die alle Umstände für die Wertung in Betracht kommen.

1. Im folgenden wird die Rechtsprechung des koreanischen obersten Gerichts(das höchste Gericht, 27. 11. 2014, 2013do15164) kommentiert. Dabei geht es um folgenden Sachverhalt. A hat das Gesäß der jungen Frau berührt so dass er wegen des Verstoss gegen das Gesetz zum Schutz von Kindern und Jugendlichen(das sog. Jugendschutzgesetz) verurteilt wurde. Nachdem seine Brufung sowie Revisionn erfolglos war, wurde dieses Uteil endgültig festgeschrieben. Gemäß §34 Abs. 1 dieses Gesetzes soll der wegen der sexuellen Belästigugung Verurteilte aber innerhalb von 40 Tagen bei der für seinen Wohnsitz zuständigen Polizei persönliche Daten vorlegen. Dennoch hat er ohne triftigen Grund diese Auflage nicht erfüllt so dass er bei der ersten Instanz zur Urteilsbebewährung zur Geldstrafe eine Milion Won verurteilt wurde. Dagegen hat er bei der Berufungsinstanz beschworen, dass er kein Unterlagen über die Anmeldugnspflicht bei der Polizei erhlaten hat. Während die zweite Instanz das Urtiel der ersten Instanz verworfen hat, wurde diese Entscheidung wiederum beim obersten Gericht aufgehoben. 2. M.E. geht es hier eigentlich darum, wie die Anmeldepflicht, persönliche Informationen bei der Polizei vorzulegen, aufzufassen ist. Hier ist sehr hilfreich, wenn die Dikussion in Deutschland in Bezug genommen wird. Tiedemann zufolge, der die sog. Vorsatztheorie vertritt, soll die Verbotskenntnis zum Vorsatz gehören, wenn dies vernünftigerweise unerläßlich ist, um ein Unrechtsbewusstsein zu haben. Diese Überlegung beruht darauf, dass die Tatbetandsverwirklichung eine Unrechtsimpuls vermittelt und dass ein solcher Unrechtsappell nur aus der Verwirklichung unrechtstypischer Umstände erwächst. Auch Roxin behauptet die sog. weichere Schuldtheorie, nach der das Bewusstsein der Rechtswidrigkeit in weitem Umfang Vorsatzbestandteil bildet, wenn die rechtliche Missbiligung eines Verhaltens erst durch außertatbestandliche Gebote oder Verbote hervorgerufen wird, wie es häufig im Nebenstrafrecht zu beobachten ist. Denn der Sinn seines Verhaltens bleibt dem Täter eben bei seinen Fehlen verschlossen. Zum Beipiel kann allein derjenige gegen eine strafbewehrte Meldepflicht verstoßen, der diese Meldepflicht kennt. Tiedemann und Roxin sind darin einig, dass das eine intellektuelle Fehlleitung des Täters einen anderen Vorwurf verdient als seine etisch-moralische Fehlleistung. Aber anders als Tiedemann, der in diesen Fällen bereits den Vorsatz des Täters verneint, will Roxin zwar den Vorsatz stehen lassen, aber durch Annahme eines unvermeidbaren Verbotsirrtums zu einem Freispruch kommen. 3. Im Gegensatz zur herrschenden Lehre hat das oberste Gericht §16 des Koreanischen Strafgesetzes dahingehend ausgelegt, dass lediglich die positive irrige Annahme des Täters, kein Unrecht zu tun, als Rechtsirrtum gewertet werden soll. Dagegen soll die Unkennnis des Gesetzes nicht als Rechtsirrtum angesehen werden. Aber diese vom obersten Gericht vorgenommene Beschränkung des Verbotsirrtums auf die positive Annahme des Täters, kein Unrecht zu tun, setzt sich folgende Einwänden aus. Zuerst geht diese Auslegungspraxis auf den Grundgedanken, dass eoror iuris nocet, der in der modernen Zeit nicht gelten kann, weil niemand unzählige Nebenstrafgesetz kennt. Zweitens kann diese enge Auslegung des Rechtsirrtums auch zur Friktion mit der Schuldfähigkeit zur Folge haben. Denn die Rechtsfolge fallen unterschiedlich aus, je nach dem, nach welchem Grundsatz die Fehlvorstellung des Täters beurteilt werden soll, auch wenn die Unrechtseinsicht in beiden Fällen gleich sein soll. Drittens liegt der Haupteinwand darin dass diese Ansicht des obersten Gerichts gerade gegen das Schuldprinzip verstößt, das Strafe Schuld voraussetzt, die das Bewusstsein fordert, Unrecht zu tun. 4. M.E. gibt es zu dem betreffenden Fall drei verschiedene Lösungswege. Die erste Lösung geht davon aus, dass das Gesetz, in dem die Anmeldungspflicht des Verurteilten vorgeschrieben ist, ein Tabestandselement darstellt. Daher soll der Vorsatz des Täters verneint werden, wenn der Täter das nicht kennt. Diese Ansicht hat die zweite Instanz behauptet. Die zweite Lösung, die vom obersten Gericht vertreten wird, behauptet, dass die Unkennnis des Gesetzes nicht als Rechtsirrtum angesehen werden soll. Daher bleibt die Unkenntnis des Gesetezes unbeachtlich. Die dritte M.E. angemessene Lösung geht von der Schuldlehre, die den Vorsatz als Tatvorsatz und das Bewußtsein der Rechtswidrigkeit als ein vom Vorsatz getrennntes selbständige Schuldelement begreift, aus und beurteilt dann ‘den zureichenden Grund’ in §16 nach dem Kriterium der Vermeidbarkeit. Dabei geht es vor allem darum, zu überprüfen, ob der Täter einen Anlaß gehabt hätte, über eine mögliche Rechtswidrigkeit seines Verhaltens nachzudenken oder sich danach zu erkundigen. Dabei sei erwähnt, dass die Entscheidung letztlich von der konkreten Sachlage abhängt. 5. Letztlich sei hier empfohlen, über die Plausibilität der Ansicht des obersten Gerichts gründlich nachzudenken. Dabei sollen vor allem die theortischen Auseinandersetzungen über den Irrtum in Nebenstrafrecht in Deutschland in weitem Maße berücksichtigt werden. Das ist deswegen dringlich vonnoten, weil die verhängte Strafe in diesem Fall uns überhaupt nicht überzeugt. Vielmehr sollte Nachsicht am Platz sein, wenn Tatbestandsvorsatz nicht ohne wieteres den Schluß auf die Kenntnis der Rechtsdwidrigkeit nahelegt.

Von einem Jurisdiktionskonflikt i.w.S. kann an sprechen, wenn ein Täter in einem Land bereits wegen einer bestimmten Straftat abgeurteilt wurde, später aber erneut in einem anderen Land wegen derselben Straftat abgeurteilt werden soll. Grundsätzlich wird eine solche mehrfache Strafverfolgung durch den ne-bis-in-idem Grundsatz verboten. Er ist jedoch im zwischenstaatlichen Rechtsverkehr nicht anerkannt. Danach ist nur eine mehrmalige Verurteilung durch koreanische Gerichte verboten. Trotzdem ist die Möglichkeit der Doppelbestrafung gegen Verdächtigen geblieben. Deshalb werde ich mit diesem Aufsatz den Reformvorschlag über das Art.7 KStGB überprüfen wie im folgendem; 1) KOGH 2013. 4. 11., 2013Do2208 Urteil; KVerfGE 2015. 5. 28., 2013Heonba129 Urteil 2) Einleitung 3) Die Geschichte des Art.7 KStGB und Ihre Diskussion über den Reformvorschlag 4) Die Stellungnahme von Lehre und Rechtsprechung über Art.7 KStGB - Lehre und Rechtsprechung in Korea und eigene Stellungnahme 5) Die verschiedene Gesetzgebungsmodelle auf die Behandlung der im Ausland vollstreckten Strafe - GB, USA, Deutschland, Japan, Österreich, China 6) Art.7 KStGB de lege ferende (1) ne-bis-in-idem Grundsatz und Art.7 KStGB (2) Zum Anrechnungsprinzip als Reformvorschlag des Art. 7 KStGB

The offense of disturbance of domestic peace and security (trespass) has a not inconsiderable amount of theoretical problems that deserve a closer look. Among them is the following case, whether the enter through concealing the criminal purpose must be punished with trespassing. Previously the supreme Court of Korea affirmed on this issue with the grounds that penetrate is against the true (hypothetical) will of the injured. But the solution of supreme court is not without problems. Penetrate is entering the protected space against the will of owner or others who have the right of possession. So if the owner approves entering, there is a priori no ‘penetrate’ and therefore no trespassing. The consent of the owner is basically also effective even if it was fraudulently by mere deception. The intent of the perpetrator in the house to commit a crime (for example theft) is not critical because it is not recognizable to outsiders. This view is substantiated by a case study: Through deception of his purpose A can go into another house with consent of owner. After A’s criminal plan this first visit is only for identification of the object of the crime. He wants to commit theft at the next visit, if only there is nobody in the house. In my opinion, A can not be punished as the offense of trespass.

The calculations of price manipulations, insider-tradings, fraudulent transactions in our capital market, it is regarded as technicals and normatives issues. We have a burning problem which we have to make its scoring criterias. The standard of counting unfair crimes in capital market have relevance to the calculation of its unjust profits. I can't accept the decision of supreme court that declared price manipulations, insider-tradings, fraudulent transactions as a comprehensive crime with a consequence that its offenders may be placed on a mild punishment unduly. We should punish offenders who have committed crimes in capital market in order to protect investor's personal property consequently we should apply our current law to unfair crimes in capital market in which price manipulations, insider-tradings, fraudulent transactions are regarded as severals separated-crimes not as a comprehensive crime.

In General, cases, where the money received is mixed up and with those related to duties and those that are not, and as a result inseparably combined to each other, are classified into two categories. Type One is when a part or all of the received money is not related to duties, but materially as a whole can be recognized as a bribe, as it is in general precedents. Type Two is when only a part of the received money can be recognized as a bribe, and the rest is not recognized as a bribe (for example, since it is a justifiable compensation), but is objectively hard to divide the parts. In regards to Type One, the whole money received shall be recognized as a bribe, and therefore be treated as a general bribery case. Therefore bribery is charged for all the money received, and “special criminal laws on specific crimes” is applied according to the amount of the bribery. However, in regards to Type Two, since only a part of the received money is bribery, the received amount of money cannot be calculated by a normal estimation method. Thus, in principle, the amount is handled as not calculable, so that “special criminal laws on specific crimes” cannot be applied. This judgement showed that Type Two exists, and has a significant meaning as a precedent since it showed that in such a case the amount of bribery cannot be calculated and thus is unable to be additionally collected. Nevertheless, subsequent judgments seem to have distorted this judgement. It restricted this judgement’s range of application only to “when the money was received on several occasions, and when each receiving act is needed to be individually judged whether it is related to duties or not.”

In relation with ‘affairs’ that become protecting objects of the affairs disturbance crime, there are pro and cons discussions about whether public affairs are included in the affairs in the crime centering on relations with ‘public affairs’ at the resisting arrest crime by chances of the harmonization judge in Supreme Court at 2009, but it is in situation of hardly finding out related discussions on ‘protecting values’ of the affairs actually. So, contrary features of judgment about existence of preventing values on the same affairs in practices become to be contacted frequently from lower and higher courts. Based on such awareness of issues, this study tries to look into attitudes of existing theories and judicial precedents on affairs’ protecting values in the affairs disturbance crime first, and then analyze them. And the study accentuates urgency of standard setting-up on affairs’ protecting values with bases of existing discussions, and investigates relations between public affairs and protecting values in the resisting arrest crime and legal nature of affairs disturbance crime for making a presupposition of discussions. After that, this study will review matters that have not to be corresponded to criminality which is prohibited by laws and objected to criminal penalties as affair requirements of becoming protecting objects from the affairs disturbance crime, have not antisocial nature to the extent of not being accepted at all from social norms, and shall take protecting values by the criminal law in relation with object judgments. Above discussions aim at minimizing illegitimacy that affects influences to judgments by contributing to systematic establishment of jurisprudence on affairs which become protecting values in the affairs disturbance crime.

In the year of 2010, 286 criminal cases by the Korean Supreme Court are registered on the homepage of that court. Four cases are decided by the counsel of all judge members, two cases of which were on the crimial procedure and the other two cases were on the criminal law. In this paper are reviewed some cases by the supreme court which seem to have theoretical or practical problems. The contents of this paper is as follows; I. Introduction II. The Cases relating to the General Provisions of Criminal Law In this chapter, following cases are reviewed. The Review is constituted as follows : (1) The fact of case, (2) The main point of case, (3) The note on case. But in many reviews the fact is omitted, because the main point of case concludes the fact of the case. 1. Supreme Court 2011. 4. 14. 2010Do5605 2. Supreme Court 2011. 1. 13. 2010Do9927 3. Supreme Court 2011. 9. 29. 2008Do9109 III. The Cases relating to Individual Provisions of Criminal Law In this chapter, following cases are reviewed. Every review is constituted as follows : (1)The fact of case, (2) The main point of case, (3) The note on case. But in many reviews the fact is omitted, because the main point of case concludes the fact of the case. 1. Supreme Court 2011. 6. 9. 선고 2010Do10677 2. Supreme Court 2011. 4. 14. 2011Do300 3. Supreme Court 2011. 10. 13. 2009Do13751 4. Supreme Court 2011. 7. 14. 2011Do3180 5. Supreme Court 2011. 4. 28. 2010Do15350 6. Supreme Court 2011. 7. 28. 2009Do14928

Article 215 of the Criminal Procedure Act does not limit explicitly the time limit that public prosecutor should request a warrant to seize, search or inspect evidence. But after the public prosecutor filed the charges, he cannot request a warrant by article 215 of the Criminal Procedure Act. After the indictment, the court may seize any articles which, it believes, may be used as evidence, or liable to confiscation, by article 106 of the Criminal Procedure Act. And the court may, if necessary, search the defendant, effects, or dwelling or any other place of the defendant, by article 109(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The court may search the person, effects, dwelling or any other place of a person other than the defendant, only when there are circumstances which warrant the belief that there are articles liable to seize therein. If the public prosecutor collected the evidence by a search warrant issued from a district court judge other than the court in charge of the case, those evidence are not admissible in principle, because those collection of evidence does not follow legal procedures, which are prepared for human rights. Supreme Court decided it April 28, 2011, on 2009Do10412 case.

South Korea’s economic indicators is not far from the top 10. But its Corruption Perceptions Index(CPI) according to Transparency International has been within the top 40 for a long time as well, showing a significant deviation from the economic indicators. Plus in the execution of the OECD anti-bribery act Korea is classified as ‘passive follower’ which is not an improvement from the last year, and there has been no policies to try to improve it. Civil servant corruption level from 2011 June anti-corruption network’s research shows that 61.9% answered that bribes affect the administrative process, and 57.5% answered that it was customary to provide money or valuables in public affairs. Corruption index of politicians, public officials, and businessmen seem to have evolved on a completely different level from the normal citizens, and while there have been attempts the chances of improvement seem slim. So it is interesting to note the Supreme Court case that actually supports the formation of corruption legally. It is a ruling from 10 years ago so it may seem to be reflecting on the political landscape of the time, but it shall be looked at in more detail because in fact it has not been overruled and is still being used as a standard in recent corruption cases. The following is the reason this case study shall focus on. According to a publishing about the investigation of a leader of a certain regional autonomous body, the court has declined a warrant from the prosecution based on our 1999 precedent. This precedent concerns the criminal law article 129 clause 2 about Advance Acceptance, and there are very few other precedents - especially rare are those about the common ‘implicit request.’ So this precedent has now been resurfaced as a critical basis for Advance Acceptance in the court. Because this precedent is used so widely and yet is virtually unknown in the academia or the routine I have researched the precedent, and have concluded that it does not agree with either the legal philosophy or with other precedents in terms of fairness. So even though the case is more than 10 years old, it is being used by the court today as a precedent, so it was deemed necessary to re-evaluate this case and conduct more in depth analysis.

After 2000, the Supreme Court of Korea did not follow just its former rulings in some criminal procedure cases. Rather the Court has chosen to underscore due process in the Korean Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Act and proceed to present more strict standards on usual practices. And in the first decade of the 21st century, the National Assembly, the Court, the Prosecutors' Office, and the academic circles have continually exerted influence over one another. As a result, the Criminal Procedure Act was revised in 2007 and took effect on and after Jan. 1, 2008. In this article, some supreme court cases in the criminal procedure are reviewed. These cases involve the exclusionary rule, the right to counsel, the admissibility of statements, and digital evidence, which are related to the revise of the Act or the change of practical routines. The revised Act introduced the exclusionary rule to the criminal justice system. The Court refused to apply the rule to the illegally obtained physical evidence. But it changed the former rulings in Supreme Court 2007. 11. 15. 2007do3061 and held that, in principle, the exclusionary rule and the fruit of Poisonous Tree doctrine should be applied to physical evidence if the evidence was obtained by the search or seizure which violated the process of the Constitution and Criminal Procedure Act. In Supreme Court 2011. 5. 26. 2009mo1190, the Court affirmed the courts' practice which made a limitation on the executive way of search and seizure warrant by the additional notes. And that ruling led the newly establishment of the article 106 ③ of the revised Act. In November 2003, the Supreme Court of Korea held that a suspect in custody had the right to counsel during interrogation. And in September 2004, the Constitutional Court of Korea determined to confer the right to counsel on a suspect without custody. After these decisions, the Criminal Procedure Act had an explicit provision for the right in 2007. On the other hand, the Court had maintained its rulings that if the formal authenticity of the statements by a suspect in the protocol of prosecutor is affirmed, the substantial authenticity of the statements was presumed and might be admissible. But the Court changed its former rulings in Supreme Court en banc 2004. 12. 16. 2002do537 and held that the substantial authenticity may also be affirmed only by an admission of the author. And in case of digital evidence, the Court has told that digital evidence may be admissible only if it falls under the hearsay exceptions where it is testimonial.

In this article, I have investigated the major property criminal cases(i.e. embezzlement, breach of trust, fraud and theft cases) sentenced in the Supreme Court since 2000, and have analyzed the n otable importance and the implications of the judgement. I have tried to examine closely, how the Supreme Court has come to apply the judicial interpretation especially in academia to discuss issues or newly emerging types of crimes as the socio-economic situations change. In summary, it could be evaluated that the Supreme Court has emphasized on the principle of “nulla poena sine lege” to protect people from the punishment without law and the arbitrary exercise of state police power, and has made an effort to make the criminal law function at its best to defend liberty and legal benefit in property rights, in response to social and economic changes.

Looking at the 2000s, the Supreme Court has no detailed research on legal issues, leave the judgment of the past and the trend seems to quote. For example, errors of law in the judgment of a legitimate reason, joint principal offender the functional activity of the dominant theory of criminal law theory, Studies of accumulated information, we accept them gradually is moving in the direction. But the Supreme Court include the specific criteria are difficult to understand the concept and are using them. Nevertheless, the fact that by missing arguments for the inclusion of judgment comes to the conclusion lacks a logical basis for a problem that is leaving. The concept of morals and social standards for the presentation of an abstract interpretation and judgment, collusion joint principal offender beliefs about the uncritical criticism of scholars for the future through careful research accumulated in Criminal Justice Studies, by accepting the theory and practice of will have to endeavor to harmonize. Thinking and knowledge learned in courses to apply it in practice will need to prevent useless. Korean Association of Criminal Case Studies is celebrating its 20th anniversary, criticism of the theory and practice through the mutual development to be able to look forward to continue to evolve.

The article §329 of Criminal Act of Korea lay down like this; 'A person who steals another's property shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than six years or by a fine not exceeding ten million won'. Larceny is one of the most common occurred crime and make out a most basic theory of property offences. The purpose of this study is to analysis the object of larceny. 2010. 2. 25. the Supreme Court of Korea made judgement that a free newspaper could be the object of larceny, while the Supreme Court did not gave a decision concrete reason. Also to relate with value of property as the object of larceny, there is not provision in the criminal law. So value of property as the object of larceny entrusts a interpretation with full argument. The property as 'a thing of value' should be divided active value, passive value, financial value, subjective value and exchange value etc. The most contentious issue of these is interpretation of passive value and subjective value. But there has been no judical precedent for this kind of case especially subjective value as of yet. In my judgement, if any thing has only subjective value, it is not property.The contents of this study is as follows; Ⅰ. A progress report of judgementⅡ. Raise a questionⅢ. The relation of property and value Ⅳ. Review of judgement

Some appellate courts find facts using the pharase on their written judgments as “with the evidence which was legally examined and admitted by the lower court” or “with the evidence legally examined, admitted by the lower court.” However those kinds of expressions are inappropriate because those do not exactly describe the proceedings of examining eivdence made by lower courts. The lower courts, especially trial courts, admit evidences, such as testimonies of witnesses or protocols made by prosecutors, which are admissible under the criminal procedure law before they examine those evidences. So those expressions on the written judgment should be corrected into the phrases like “with the evidence which was legally admitted and examined by the lower court” or “with the evidence legally admitted, examined by the lower court.” Appellate courts should be careful about using the phrase, “as the record shows that ”, even though they … pronounce not guilty judgment because there are various kinds of documents in the court record. The evidence which is put in the court record and cited by the appellate court should be legally obtained and examined in the courtroom. If the appleallte court rules guilty judgment using that pharase even though there are illegally obtained or examined evidence in the court record, that judgment breaches evidence rules. To pronounce the guilty judgment, the appellate court should cite the evidences of the trial court which are legally admitted and examined. However the appellate courts should not find fact with no evidence on its written judgment, because fact finding shall be based on evidence(Article 307 of Korean Criminal Procedure Law).

이 글은 연명치료의 중단에 관해 서로 상반된 결론을 내렸던 보라매병원 판결(대법원 2002도995)과 신촌세브란스병원 판결(대법원 2009다17471)이 전통적으로 의료사회를 지배했던 의사후견주의 혹은 가족주의적 후견주의의 이념을 어떠한 방식으로 수용하거나 변형 또는 거부하고 있는지를 분석한다. 보라매병원 사건에서 법원이 '의사'의 자연법적 의무를 강조한 것은 의사가 자연법 발견의 능력이 있음을 전제하는 전통적인 의사후견주의적 인식에서 출발한 것이긴 하

이 논문은 2009년 2월 20일 미국의 제9 연방순회항소법원에서 내려진 Video Software Dealers Association v. Arnold Schwarzenegger 사건에 대한 판결의 의미와 한국게임법제도에의 시사점을 검토한 것이다. 이 사건에서 제9 연방순회항소법원은 폭력성 비디오게임을 18세 미만의 미성년자에게 판매하거나 대여하는 것을 금지하는 캘리포니아 주법(州法)이 미국 연방헌법에 명시된 미성년자 (minor)의 권리를 침해한다는 판결을 내렸다. 이에 비해서 한국의 헌법재판소는 청소년보호를 위한 청소년유해매체물 제도와 사전등급분류 제도에 대해서는 합헌이라는 결정을 하였다. 헌법재판소는 미국의 제9 연방항소법원의 판결과 같이 음란과 폭력성을 구분하여 접근하고 있고, 폭력성 개념이 대해서 간접적으로 위헌적이라는 결정을 한 바 있다. 미국법원의 덜 제한적인 수단의 선택이라는 법리와 헌법재판소의 최소침해성 원칙에서 본다면 청소년유해매체물 제도와 사전등급분류 제도의 중첩 적용은 문제될 수 있으며, 이 중에서 더 강한 규제가 위헌이 될 소지가 있다.